Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/06/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Even greatly manipulated digital footage does NOT look like film, it just doesn't. There are extremely rare films shot on film that are so squeaky clean that they possibly could be misconstrued for digital, but honestly, I can't think of any off the top of my head. Film is obviously not just grain, it's the way faces, colors are rendered, it's the life in the frame. Prashantt talks about Benoit Debie, Debie himself said on The Beach Bum that he CANNOT achieve the colors he wants to achieve with anything else but film. There are so many films that would gain something if shot on film, so many films that need the grit, but are too goddam squeaky clean and it works against the film, I'm sorry but it does. It made me smile when Rodrigo Prieto said in a video that he thought Sicario should have been shot on film because it needed that grit, Sicario is gorgeously shot but I agree. Linus Sandgren has professed his love for film, and continues to do so every single time and is adamant he can do so many things with film that he can't with digital, and many others say the same thing. Deakins not seeing the difference anymore is his problem really, but hey, as much as his work with the Alexa is gorgeous, I still think it doesn't come close to his best work on film (independent of the fact that every movie is different) and something is missing. That's just my two cents. We fundamentally disagree here, there IS a magical quality to film, and if you're not willing to take the word of tons of highly respected directors and DPs on this, I don't know what to tell you. I tell you what I see, story is story sure, shooting on film doesn"t mean you're going to make a good movie, only a clown would think this. But it MATTERS, do you understand? I always see the difference and I've spent years training my eye for it, scrutinizing footage, sometimes up close, and it's also what the format evokes, and I said what film evokes for me. Also, keep in mind that I see most films on a 90 inch plus screen with a great JVC videoprojector, I'm lucky enough to do so. Now, if you're watching something on a TV and you're sitting far away, or same in the movie theater, you're obviously not going to see the grain or the texture of film much, unless it's super 16 or it was push processed, that's common sense. Even then, you still have all the advantages and qualities of film, but I don't see the point of sitting far away, I want to see and FEEL the texture of the film. And here we go into another film vs digital "debate" despite my best intentions. Sorry OP.
  2. 3 points
    There are no easy answers here, but if you consider that sometimes movies are an art form, not just a product for mass consumption, then not every choice has to be determined by what the audience cares about or notices -- sometimes it is enough for the artist to care about something and then hope there is a receptive audience for their particular vision. I don't think when David Lynch or Andrei Tarkovsky made a movie, they spent much of their time wondering what clients and consumers were asking for. It goes way beyond choice of shooting format, after all if you build a set and sew costumes, you have to make decisions on color schemes, textures, etc. that go way beyond a typical viewer's ability to care or notice. I think to some extent, audiences don't care because they don't have to, they expect the filmmakers to care. The skills needed to make any complex product are beyond the average consumer, but the consumer hopes that someone cares about the details. So if you hire artists to make something, anything, then one shouldn't be surprised that these artists have certain tastes for how things are done. And some artists are sensitive to the origination medium. I mean, would anyone be surprised if painters had opinions about working in oils versus acrylics, or sculptors working in marble versus wood?
  3. 2 points
  4. 2 points
    https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/the-beach-bum-cinematographer-benoit-debie-master-color-1202055726/ I don't know what the budget of this film - The Beach Bum but Benoit Debie has shot it on 35 with lots of in camera effects (varicolor polariser) and spent only 4 days in a grading suite.
  5. 1 point
    Again, in 2018 Kodak had it's best year since they filed for bankruptcy and people are looking to differentiate their products from everyone elses. So MORE people are shooting film, especially super 16, that has an entirely different look than digital. Nobody cares about what television doc's, corporate or industrial films are shot with, could be a camcorder as long as it tells the story. Television has such a fast timeline, unless you're shooting in a media city, it's hard to make film work. However, many TV shows have in recent years Westworld being one of them. Where it's true many long-term shows switched to digital for their 2018 season, a lot of that is just less viewership and budget reductions. Television is dying, so I wouldn't expect them to shoot film anymore, or do I feel something being watched once, has any value on being shot on film. Red is falling off the popularity chart. I know they worked out a deal with Panavision to make a special kit for TV, but nobody cares. The Alexa dominates the digital market, whether it's the Amira on doc's or Alexa Mini on TV, Music video's, commercials or features, the Arri's are more stable, have better overall integrated support and don't require dozens of add-on's to work. Where I do like Red Code as a codec, Pro Res from the Alexa's work much better for post production. Yea there are some Red die hard's, Soderbergh and Fincher to name two. However, those guys are all about experimenting with new stuff, they could care less about tradition. In my eyes, the only reason why Red has been popular at all is due to the over-sampling imager. Being able to shoot 6k raw for a 4k finish, has been great but now that Alexa has higher resolution solutions. Arri will enter into the 8k market soon and when they do, if they "sell" the cameras instead of simply only rent them, I think Red will be done. The color science on the Alexa is far better and they've proven to build a better more stable package over the years. Right now, the only people who use Red's are devotee's and people who own them. Sounds just like the people who shoot film to me! lol
  6. 1 point
    I only have the first version of the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, but it's been bulletproof! The only weak spot is the flare in the back lit subjects. The mark ii has fixed this problem. I haven't shot with the mark iii yet. It's worth the money in peace of mind as well as resell value.
  7. 1 point
    Go tell that to Spielberg, Nolan, Scorsese, Tarantino, PT Anderson, Snyder, Chazelle, JJ Abrams, Ponsoldt, Coen Brothers, Scott Cooper, Adam McKay, and so many others. This is ridiculous. It MATTERS, who cares if audiences know the difference (but they'll feel it), it's your intention, you, the filmmaker, and the DP, you want your film to look and feel a certain way. You might not miss it but plenty LOVE it because it looks and feels better, there is emotion with film, something happens, it's a quicker way to empathy than digital is imo, plenty will tell you the same, it can't be rationalized, it just is. It also looks more interesting and stands out. All my favorite films are shot on film, all of them, it's not a coincidence, it's not an internal trick, it just makes me feel in a way digital doesn't, independent of the emotion of the movie itself. Go ahead and call those master directors, or DPs like Linus Sandgren, or Masanobu Takayanagi, or Rodrigo Prieto and so many others that they're "tech hipsters". If you truly can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you, it's blatant, it's obvious.
  8. 1 point
    I think also that the two articles were not totally fair. They compared top of the line Alexa camera with Super 16. Not exactly a fair comparison, and the Red cam they compared came in cheaper than the Super 16. The filmmaker article also said the total film cost was $16,000.00, when the camera equipment alone cost him just over $7,000.00, and failed to mention film to digital transfer. The other article mentioned that on a digital shoot you need technicians for color correction and all that, while if you shoot film you just need the camera and the cameraman. Whenever I see behind the scenes shots of big movies being made, the director is always watching a TV to see the shots, so they use them for films shoots as well. Again, a little unfair. Unless I missed something in the articles. As far as what the director wants to shoot on, that is a different story altogether.
  9. 1 point
    Do the same thing everyone else does = death too. Where I do think young filmmakers should be making content and not worrying about what's used to make that content, there is a certain satisfaction and look that film delivers, which digital has yet to achieve. Having the knowledge of what it's like to shoot film, it critical in my book. It's not like today's young filmmakers had ANY experiences with film at all, 99.5% of them probably never touched film before they made the leap TO film. Most will buy a still camera, but a few will buy movie cameras and it's that passion for the past, which will lead them to become great filmmakers in the future. Having the knowledge to shoot good film translates extremely will into the digital world and will make you a more efficient filmmaker.
  10. 1 point
    Last 2 perf movie I saw that was done photochemically looked like complete crap. I don't know where they did the blow up work, but it was bad. I mean if you're after that 1980's soft look, than I guess? If you watch David Mullins "Love Witch" on 35mm, it was sharp as a tack, looked exactly how it's supposed to look. Frankly, I don't think you can do a photochemical finish from anything but 4 perf and have it come out good. The reason is quite simple... you can make prints directly off the camera negative with 4 perf. With 2 perf, you're having to make the image anamorphic. So you're going through the optical printer and doing your color timing at the same time. Theoretically, you could strike an answer print right then and there, but you can't add the soundtrack layer. So you're having to make an IP no matter what, then adding the soundtrack onto the IN and striking prints from the IN. The process for 3 perf is much the same since it's a WIDER image. You'd be doing an optical pass, then making an IP and IN to strike prints with soundtrack from. If you do 1:1 4 perf to 4 perf, no matter what aspect ratio you choose, the prints are going to be exactly what the negative is. Scanning your film at 5k (which is pretty standard these days) doing the entire post process in 4k and lasering it back to film at 4k, gives you a beautiful internegative, that's super crisp and the prints could possibly retain around 3k worth of information, which is quite good for 35mm. The blow up's talked about above, they're around 1200 lines of resolution. The best way to watch films shot on 35mm is actually with a photochemical blow up to 70mm. Since the format uses digital audio and only needs timecode put on the rolls, it's easier to do a 35mm to 70mm blow up and then add the digital data in since it's not between the sprockets. Thus, you can actually make a limited amount of theatrical prints from 35mm masters to 70mm without these issues and have nearly equal quality to the original 35mm camera negative. The losses with 35mm blow up's are nearly non-existent.
  11. 1 point
    This is a profound truth.
  12. -1 points
    Film is dead.. wise up you guys.. go digital or die.. I don't know how many times I have to say this.. only so long I can give my advise for free and save your careers ..
  13. -1 points
    What possible advantage could there be at this point to originate on film? Even IF it cost the same as digital? People are shooting popular features and commercials on iPhones & cameras you can pick up at Best Buy now. Audiences don't care about film. People watch more video/motion picture work daily now than they used to watch in a year, and are really only interested in content. I see work shot on film (stills or motion picture) these days by tech hipsters and for the life of me, I can't see anything different in terms of look from any other modern digital imagery. Film is more time consuming, offers more possible ways to ruin it (fog, dust, tears, scratches, crinkles, lab damage, etc.), and film is a one time use medium as opposed to thousands. I started out with film and I for one don't miss it. Clients don't ask for it and consumers/audiences don't either.
  14. -1 points
    But Manu.. digital can look like film and film can look like Digital .. there isnt one generic film look .. that all those Directors want.. film can be very sharp ,digital can be very soft looking.. again this idea that if you shoot on film there is some mystical ,magical quality .. and it must be good because famous directors like film.. alot of those people in your list have made some really bad movies .. guess what.. shot on film.. Top DoP,s can work with digital and make it look great.. just as they can with film.. Barry Ackroyd has shot digital .. although a film fan..and it looks exactly like his work on film.. and anyway shooting film doesn't fix a crap movie ..
×
×
  • Create New...